I am pretty fed up with him myself. If it was plausible to trade him, I would be all for it. I am not entirely sure why if we trade him we take a cap hit... I dont know all the trade rules and such. If people are saying Brian Urlacher is worth a first and a third rounder if he gets traded, I think Chad is equally worth that. Now would we be able to sign those players? Maybe not =(

I agree with PalmerToTJ on this. They need to stick to their guns...tell him play or sit. But then again I am pretty tired of CJ too. I want him gone as well.

I am not entirely sure why if we trade him we take a cap hit... I dont know all the trade rules and such.

you know what, I don't know all the rules either, but I think he was offered X amount of money, and garunteed no matter what happened at least Y would be paid of it. And so he has 8 million dollars left in garunteed money that we pay chad no matter what and thus, if we trade him we don't need to pay his whole contract, but we do have to pay the garunteed money.

itd be great if he was willing to negotiate that. if he wants out enough he can void that to get out of town.

This has been on my mind as well. If a player wants out of a contract so bad or off of a team so bad and doesnt want to honor the contract they signed...why should the team still have to pay that player the rest of the gauranteed money? I know it is called "gauranteed" money for a reason but part of the reason the gauranteed money would be so high for a certain player would be because the team expects that player to be around during the length of the agreed upon contract. If that makes any sense...

I, like the rest of you don't completely understand how the cap and whatnot would work out so I can't verify this but it was posted on PFT (so take it for what it's worth) and I found it to be very interesting...

Quote:

Whenever the possibility of trading Chad Johnson comes up, Mark Curnutte of the Cincinnati Enquirer crows about the supposedly crippling cap hit that the Bengals would take if they were to trade or release Johnson.

Again on Wednesday, Curnutte asserts that “the club can simply not afford to trade the wide receiver or terminate his contract.”

Curnutte continues to point to an $8 million cap hit that the Bengals would take. But Curnutte also continues to minimize and/or overlook a couple of key facts.

First, the June 1 rule permits the cap charge to be spread over two seasons. If Johnson is traded or released after June 1, the dead money in 2008 will be considerably smaller, apparently in the neighborhood of $3 million. He also can be cut now, with the move designated as a post-June 1 transaction.

Second, since the Bengals would avoid Johnson’s $3 million base salary for 2008 (and his $250,000 workout bonus, which they’ve presumably already been relieved from paying due to his failure to report for voluntary offseason workouts), it’s a wash in 2008 dollars.

Third, any cap hit in 2009 would be offset by $4.75 million in salary and workout bonus that the Bengals wouldn’t have to pay to Johnson next year.

Third, Curnutte makes his claims without setting forth any facts regarding the team’s projected cap situation in 2009, when the maximum per-team spending limit is virtually certain to increase by another $7 million or more, exceeding $120 million for the first time. So what’s $5 million or so in dead money, especially when $4.75 million or so in new money wouldn’t be paid to a guy with a stick in his butt?

Remember this — we’re talking about the Bengals. Mike Brown is one of those owners who would be happy to operate without a salary cap because there likewise would be no salary floor. Cutting or trading Johnson means in essence that the Bengals get extra credit toward the salary floor without spending any more money.

Our guess in this regard is that the Bengals are privately using the cap hit to help sell their decision to the fan base to dig in their heels and not trade Johnson, even if at some point it’s in the team’s best short-term and long-term interests to do so.

Sooner or later, the fans are going to demand that something be done; we think the Bengals are trying to head that off by floating a specious argument based on financial realities that in reality inure to the benefit of the chronically frugal franchise.

I would hate to see him just be cut. That would likely increase his likelihood to be snagged by an AFC rival. Then he could play against us and light us up and then brag about. It would be salt in the wounds for sure.

Chad Johnson not get paid and leave? Heck no. He probably wants us to pay him more to leave. When we finally decide to get rid of him he will pack sit in the locker room and demand 10 million dollars or he will sit their all season and cause trouble.

Quote from CJ after he is traded.

"I never told anyone I wanted to be traded. I don't know where everyone got that from. I never told Marvin (Lewis) once that I wouldn't show up. I just want to come on ESPN here one more time and make it all clear"

There is no way the Bengals just cut Chad. Yes, the cap hit could be spread to the 2009 season, but they get NOTHING in return. NOTHING ?? Does anyone here really think Mike Brown is going to let Chad (5 straight pro bowls) go for NOTHING ?? IF this happens, I see a draft day kind of thing going on or at a minimum, before the June cuts after the draft.

There are other ways to absorb the cap hit the Bengals would surely take, but I'm not supremely confident that anyone in the Bengals front office is willing to make those types of moves. Cutting players doesn't seem to be the way to build a better franchise either...

Oh yeah, I sent my Chad Johnson Jersey to the address on his website for fan mail with a letter attached telling him to go "F" himself and a few choice words spray painted on the jersey...